Thread: Breaking news - Qantas A380 in trouble near Singapore

This is why Qantas repaired the plane that had a mid air explosion a few years ago. This plane was a (repairable) write off but they fixed it to maintain their reputation of never losing a plane.

This is a myth that is regurgitated every now and then. Of course the story is normally applied to OJH, which was the 747 that suffered a landing overrun in Bangkok. That aircraft was repaired for substantially less than the the cost of replacement, either by a new aircraft or a second hand one. The aircraft is still in service.

OJK was the one involved in the mid-air explosion. The repair was around $10 million...so whilst a bit more than the cost of fixing a Landy, it was not great in the aviation scheme of things. It was returned to service, but was retired to the desert about a year later, a victim of the GFC.

And a myth it is anyway. While Qantas may not have ever lost a jet, they certainly have lost planes before the jet era, although they managed to avoid any passenger fatalities from inception to 1942, and you would have to say that their aircraft losses over the years have been quite low compared to may of their competitors. To some extent this is a function of the generally benign weather and fairly long legs in Australia and their operation outside Australia only on long haul routes (most aircraft losses are in takeoff and landing - having long haul routes gives you a leg up on statistics!).

John

Originally Posted by JDNSW

To some extent this is a function of the generally benign weather .....

I don't agree with you there. Weather in Oz is anything but benign. It is the only place that I've encountered severe windshear, and the thunderstorms in this part of the world are nasty. What you don't see in Oz is lots of ice and snow, but the long haul ops encounter that as well.

Originally Posted by jb747

I don't agree with you there. Weather in Oz is anything but benign. It is the only place that I've encountered severe windshear, and the thunderstorms in this part of the world are nasty. What you don't see in Oz is lots of ice and snow, but the long haul ops encounter that as well.

Compared to many other places the weather is benign, and not just the lack of ice and snow. Even though thunderstorms are nasty here, which I totally agree with, and you get severe wind shear, thunderstorms are nowhere near as bad on average as they can be, for example in the mid-continent of North America - sure, we get tornadoes here, but far less frequently than here. And a large proportion of RPT weather related incidents, I would think, are associated with ice and snow. And not many places in Australia can be described as hot and high.

Certainly long haul ops encounter snow and ice, but as I pointed out, the advantage for them is the relatively infrequent landings and takeoffs compared to short haul operations. And just about anywhere is shorthaul compared to either typical domestic routes in Australia or flights from Australia to anywhere.

John

Originally Posted by JDNSW

just about anywhere is shorthaul compared to either typical domestic routes in Australia or flights from Australia to anywhere.
John

I certainly agree with your statistical point re number of landings/take offs but I'm not so sure that the long haul argument applies to the Australian domestic runs any more than other places..

They do some long haul fights in the USA (NYC to LAX for example), in China and in the fomer USSR.

In the latter two exampes though there are probably other reasons for the number of "incidents".

Originally Posted by VladTepes

I certainly agree with your statistical point re number of landings/take offs but I'm not so sure that the long haul argument applies to the Australian domestic runs any more than other places..

They do some long haul fights in the USA (NYC to LAX for example), in China and in the fomer USSR.

In the latter two exampes though there are probably other reasons for the number of "incidents".

While there are plenty of long haul routes elsewhere in the world, there are almost no real shorthaul routes (served by first rank airlines) in Australia. There is nothing comparable, even in proportion, to routes such as London - Paris, Houston-Dallas/Fort Worth, Boston-New York, for example. All the heavy traffic routes in Australia are at least about 50% further. (I suspect that Melbourne-Sydney-Brisbane still represents about 75% of all Australian traffic!)

My point is that the long haul flights in the US, for example, represent a lot smaller proportion of the traffic. And I agree with your comments about China and the former USSR - I used to work for a major company that had a well resourced aviation safety department - and boy, did they have problems when we were exploring opportunities in those countries!

John